Deja vu

Share Button

My goodness – two more articles on Father Hod Marshall, one in the Windsor Star and another in the Sudbury Star:

10 August 2010:  ‘Not much we can do’  

10 August 2010:  Priest faces more sex charges: 3 more alleged victims step forward 

The first, ‘Not much we can do’ is a little grabled at the start – that’s the way I found it online.  I will try tomorrow to get a text version to correct that.

As I said elsewhere, hats off to you Ted Holland!

When I first read the Holland account in yesterday’s Toronto Star it was like deja vu.  So similar to the David Silmser saga.  So very very similar.

What is strange with Ted Holland and the Basilians is that it seems Holland did not personally contact the Basilians – the Basilians contacted him!

How did the Basilians find out about Ted Holland’s allegations against Father William Hodgson Marshall?

And how much ‘investigation,’ if any, did Sudbury police do?

Note too that Holland was obliged to sign an agreement that he would not pursue criminal charges. 

Is this perchance another illegal gag order?  It sounds like it, does it not?  That’s what happened with David Silmser

 Read David Silmser’s Undertaking not to Disclose 

That’s what landed Cornwall lawyer Malcolm MacDonald in a little bit of trouble, not a lot, but enough to be charged with obstruction of justice – Silmser was compelled to go to police and say that he no longer wished to pursue charges against Father Charles MacDonald.  Illegal.  Malcolm was the fall guy for that.

Is there something different here?  Well, I am sure there are are differences, but is there something that says that in this instance Ted Holland could be ordered by Basilian lawyers not to pursue criminal charges?

I must check back on  the whole business – but I don’t think a pay-off can prevent a victim from proceeding criminally.

Also I am intrigued to see that Marshall was apparently right off to Saint Luke’s Institute when he left St. Lucia.   Did something happen in St. Lucia?

I have more to say on this.  Later….

Enough for now



This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Canada, Cornwall, recycled, Scandal, Treatment centres and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Deja vu

  1. Sylvia says:

    Section 139 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is the applicable law:

    Obstructing justice

    139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

    (a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

    (b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

    is guilty of

    (c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

    (d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.


    (2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.


    (3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

    (a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

    (b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or

    (c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.R.S., c. C-34, s. 127; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 3; 1972, c. 13, s. 8.

    Was the $30,000 a bribe? I haven;t seen the legal document, but of my I have serious questions about this one?

    Nother question: Ted Holland did not accept the initial $20,000. One year later the Basilians had upped it to $30,000. According to news articles, Ted said he accepted the $30,000 on the advice of a lawyer. Did the Basilians suggest he get a lawyer? I ask only because that’s what happened with Dave Silmser.

    Ted, I hope you have the original statment which you signed. Make copies of it and tuck it away in safe place. When you go to police take a COPY with you – ask that it be checked for legality. If it is illegal, charges should be laid.

    Finally, I checked through the testimony of Church canon lawyer/lawyer and “alleged” molester Jacques Leduc at the Cornwall Public Inquiry. Here is the illegal clause which was used in David Silmser’s pay-off agreement:

    2.In addition to the aforesaid release and for the said consideration,I hereby undertake not to take any legal proceedings, civil or criminal, against any of the parties hereto and will immediately terminate any actions that may now be inprocess.

    Dave had gone to police. The diocese approached him with the offer of $32,000. Dave agreed to the pay-off because, to simply a long story, after many months, he was told charges would not be laid.

    The Full Release and Undertaking Not to Disclose obliged Dave to terminate his criminal complaint. However, it also obliged him to agree not to “take any legal proseedings, civil or criminal…” As I re-read Leduc’s testimony it was self evident that it was inclusion of the word “criminal” which makes it illegal.

    Leduc wasn’t charged for the role he played in hankering this agreement. Malcolm MacDonald, the lawyer – and “alleged” molester! – who represented “alleged” molester Father Charles MacDonald was eventually charged. He got, if you can beleive it, a conditional sentence!

    The thrird laywer involved in the pay-off, Sean Adams, wasn;t charged either. Adams was presumably called in at the 11th hour to represent Dave’s interests. He presumably read and explained the illegal docoment to Dave but failed to understand that it contained an illegal clause!!!!

Leave a Reply